From: John Cuccia 

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:09:55 -0500, "Mark"  wrote:

>
>"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
>news:n4ccp1pj3rnekijhd1nbqmu5o9aqlp4r17{at}4ax.com...
>> I'm not saying it, the National Review is.
>
>That's not true either John, the National Review merely linked a source on
>it, why do you say that's their position when your very own link disproves
>it?

The National Review's headline for the article:  "Et Tu, Fox News?"

Their source: the Freedom House Center for Religious Freedom
(http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/about/about.htm), which is
"America's oldest human rights group. Its Center for Religious Freedom
defends against religious persecution of all groups throughout the world.
It insists that U.S. foreign policy defend Christians and Jews, Muslim
dissidents and minorities, and other religious minorities in countries such
as Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iran and Sudan. It is fighting the
imposition of harsh Islamic law in the new Iraq and Afghanistan and opposes
blasphemy laws in Muslim countries that suppress more tolerant and
pro-American Muslim thought."


That sounds like something you'd admire.  They look to be quite reliable as
a source of information.

>>Do  you find them more or less credible than Fox News?
>
>Apples and oranges.

How so?  They both report, can't you decide?

>> And unlike the Bush family,  I'm not enamored of the Saudis, though  I
>> find it perfectly plausible that petroleum plutocrats pull the levers
>> at Fox News.
>
>I find that implausible

Why?  The network is a conduit for the US oilmen running America, why
wouldn't they cater to the whims of their oilmen Saudi owners?

> but then CNN

I'm no CNN fan. I rarely, if ever, watch it, and I give no credence to its
talking heads (whoever they might be these days).  Surely you can muster a
better defense of the hypocrisy of Fox News than the disappointing
"CNN did it too".

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5